Appeal against order made in Hague Convention proceedings.
Munby set out the function of the Court of Appeal: ‘Like any judgment, the judgment of the Deputy Judge has to be read as a whole, and having regard to its context and structure. The task facing a judge is not to pass an examination, or to prepare a detailed legal or factual analysis of all the evidence and submissions he has heard. Essentially, the judicial task is twofold: to enable the parties to understand why they have won or lost; and to provide sufficient detail and analysis to enable an appellate court to decide whether or not the judgment is sustainable. The judge need not slavishly restate either the facts, the arguments or the law. To adopt the striking metaphor of Mostyn J in SP v EB and KP [2014] EWHC 3964 (Fam), [2016] 1 FLR 228, para 29, there is no need for the judge to ‘incant mechanically’ passages from the authorities, the evidence or the submissions, as if he were ‘a pilot going through the pre-flight checklist.’
The task of this court is to decide the appeal applying the principles set out in the classic speech of Lord Hoffmann in Piglowska v Piglowski . . It is not the function of an appellate court to strive by tortuous mental gymnastics to find error in the decision under review when in truth there has been none. The concern of the court ought to be substance not semantics. To adopt Lord Hoffmann’s phrase, the court must be wary of becoming embroiled in ‘narrow textual analysis’.’
Sir James Munby P FD, Arden LJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 546
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – WM v HM FC 9-May-2017
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, Litigation Practice
Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565359